| 1 |
On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 12:42:58PM +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 13:13:42 +0200, Momesso Andrea wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > > Amazon's S3 service has proved reliable and economical for me. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > Looks very interesting... |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > Does it also provide a way to mount it as a filesystem (for example via |
| 9 |
> > nfs), so that it becomes transparently part of my server? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> There's a fuse module to mount it as a filesystem, or you can access it |
| 12 |
> with DAV IIRC. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Sounds interesting, thanks for the info! |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I might provide the user both a physical storage (at my place) and the |
| 18 |
amazon s3. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
This way the user will be able to use the local one for 90% of his |
| 21 |
needs, integrated in the web interface he alredy knows and uses everyday |
| 22 |
(or maybe a knowledgtree installation would be even better), and a link |
| 23 |
for "fast downloads", near every file that will connect directly to the |
| 24 |
amazon server. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
If I set up a script to keep in sync my local storage and the amazon |
| 27 |
one, the user will be able to reduce the costs (only download from |
| 28 |
amazon when really needed), and will not have to bother learning a new |
| 29 |
interface. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Thank you again! |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
--- |
| 34 |
TopperH |
| 35 |
http://topperh.blogspot.com |
Archives